Fitzpatrick v White

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice White
Judgment Date03 June 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] IEHC 479
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[No. 9955 P/1997]
Date03 June 2005

[2005] IEHC 479

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 9955 P/1997]
FITZPATRICK v ROYAL VICTORIA EYE & EAR HOSPITAL (WHITE)

BETWEEN

PAUL FITZPATRICK
PLAINTIFF

AND

AIDA WHITE, AS THE NOMINEE OF THE ROYAL VICTORIA EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL
DEFENDANT
Abstract:

Medical negligence - Liability - Cosmetic surgery - Whether the defendant warned the plaintiff of the risks attached to the surgery.

The plaintiff claimed damages for negligence in respect of an operation to improve the cosmetic appearance of his eye. The plaintiff claimed that he experienced double vision following the surgery and claimed that the defendant failed to inform him, in advance of the surgery, that double vision was a possible consequence of the surgery.

Held by White J. in dismissing the claim: That the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant failed to warn him that there was a risk of double vision resulting from the operation. The plaintiff was not a credible witness.

Reporter: L. O'S.

Mr. Justice White
1

The Plaintiff herein is a 37 year old musician. He was born with a squint in his left eye. As a child, he had an operation to correct this squint. On the 4th day of March, 1994, he attended the Defendant's Hospital for elective surgery to improve the cosmetic appearance of his eye. Subsequent to this surgery, the Plaintiff experienced double vision with his eye. Further surgery was carried out, but the Plaintiff continues to experience double vision.

2

The Plaintiff claims damages for negligence in respect of the operation carried out on the 4th day of March, 1994, principally on the basis that the Defendant's Hospital, its servants or agents, failed to inform him, in advance, that double vision was a possible consequence of the surgery. He further alleges negligence, in a general way, in relation to the manner in which the operation was carried out, but such claim has not been pursued to any great extent.

3

Negligence is denied. The Defendant accepts that it was obliged to inform the Plaintiff of the risk of double vision. The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff was informed of the risks of double visions.

4

To succeed herein, the Plaintiff must establish, on the balance of probabilities not only that a warning was not given, but also that, had a warning been given, he would not have undergone the operation.

5

Quite clearly, the Plaintiff asserts that he was not warned or informed of the risk of double vision.

6

In evidence, the Plaintiff stated that he attended by appointment at the Defendant Hospital in November 1993. There he was seen by Ms. Fitzsimons, Orthoptist, who carried out a series of eye tests, and who arranged for him to see Mr. Moriarty, Consultant Surgeon.

7

The Plaintiff again attended the Hospital in December 1993. There he again saw Ms. Fitzsimmons who introduced him to Mr. Moriarty. He stated that his conversation with Mr. Moriarty consisted of Mr. Moriarty saying "I was discussing with Ms. Fitzsimmons, you would like your eye straightened" he replying "I would like it done" and Mr. Moriarty saying "yes". He stated that nothing was said to him at this meeting as regards possible risks, complications, or side effects to the operation.

8

The Plaintiff again attended the Hospital on the 4th day of March, 1994, on which occasion surgery was carried out on his left eye by Dr. Goggin. Prior to meeting the Doctor he stated that he had been given a pill, a sedative. The Plaintiff was in a gown, and on a bed in a ward, when he met Dr. Goggin. The Plaintiff described his conversation with Dr. Goggin as having lasted maybe ten minutes. He stated that in this conversation there was no mention of any possible complications, or side effects, arising from the surgery. He stated that the only question he asked Dr. Goggin was as to the chances of his eye being straight, to which the Doctor replied it would not be 100% straight, that there would be a good cosmetic improvement, and that when he got into his fifties he may need to get it corrected again.

9

The plaintiff experienced difficulties with his eye following surgery. He stated that, in addition to suffering headaches and double vision, he was unable to move his eye. He was given eye exercises, and he stated that whilst carrying out these exercises something snapped in his eye, causing it to turn totally in the opposite direction in his head.

10

In January 1995 further surgery was carried out on the Plaintiff's eye, but, notwithstanding such surgery, the Plaintiff continues to complain of double vision, which double visions he states has, and continues to, adversely affect his enjoyment of life, and which adversely affected his studies, and ruined his career prospects.

11

Under cross-examination, the plaintiff was adamant that he had not been warned of the risks of double visions, and volunteered that, had he been so warned he would not have gone ahead with the operation.

12

It is quite clear to me that Dr. Goggin, if he had adhered to his usual practice, would have informed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Fitzpatrick v White
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 15 November 2007
    ...VICTORIA EYE & EAR HOSPITAL DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT FITZPATRICK v WHITE AS NOMINEE OF ROYAL VICTORIA EYE & EAR HOSPITAL UNREP WHITE 3.6.2005 2005 IEHC 479 HAY v O'GRADY 1992 1 IR 210 WALSH v FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES LTD & ORS 1992 1 IR 496 DUNNE v NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL 1989 IR 91 GEOGHE......
  • Mary Healy v Brendan Buckley and the Bon Secours Hospital and the Bon Secours Health System
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 May 2010
    ... ... Hospital [1989] IR 91 followed - Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 [2005] 1 AC 134 approved - Geoghegan v Harris [2000] IR 536 and Fitzpatrick v White [2008] 3 IR 551 considered - Claim dismissed (2004/ 8001P - O'Neill J - 20/5/2010) [2010] IEHC 191 Healy v Buckley ... ...
  • Mary Healy v Brendan Buckley and the Bon Secours Hospital and the Bon Secours Health System
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 17 November 2015
    ... ... judge was entitled to find that the doctor was not negligent in regard to consent, referring to Geoghegan v Harris [2000] 3 IR 536 and Fitzpatrick v White [2008] 3 IR 551. Ryan P held that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 2014/108 - Ryan Kelly Finlay ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT